Tag: Finance

Regulation Round Up March 2024

Welcome to the UK Regulation Round Up, a regular bulletin highlighting the latest developments in UK and EU financial services regulation.

Key developments in March 2024:

28 March

FCA Regulation Round-up: The FCA published its regulation round-up for March 2024.

26 March

AIFMD II: Directive (EU) 2024/927 amending the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU) (“AIFMD”) and the UCITS Directive (2009/65/EC) (“UCITS Directive”) relating to delegation arrangements, liquidity risk management, supervisory reporting, provision of depositary and custody services, and loan origination by alternative investment funds has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (“EU”). Please refer to our dedicated article on this topic here.

ELTIFs: The European Commission published a Communication to the Commission explaining that it intends to adopt, with amendments, ESMA’s proposed regulatory technical standards (“RTS”) under Regulations 9(3), 18(6), 19(5), 21(3) and 25(3) of the Regulation on European Long-Term Investment Funds ((EU) 2015/760) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2023/606.

Financial Promotions: The FCA published finalised guidance (FG24/1) on financial promotions on social media.

Cryptoassets: The Investment Association (“IA”) published its second report on UK fund tokenisation written by the technology working group to HM Treasury’s asset management taskforce.

25 March

Cryptoassets: ESMA published a final report (ESMA75-453128700-949) on draft technical standards specifying requirements for co-operation, exchange of information and notification between competent authorities, European Supervisory Authorities and third countries under the Regulation on markets in cryptoassets ((EU) 2023/1114) (“MiCA”).PRIIPS Regulation: the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (“ECON”) published the report (PE753.665v02-00) it has adopted on the European Commission’s legislative proposal for a Regulation making amendments to the Regulation on key information documents (“KIDs”) for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (1286/2014) (“PRIIPs Regulation”) (2023/0166(COD)).

Alternative Investment Funds: The FCA published the findings from a review it carried out in 2023 of alternative investment fund managers that use the host model to manage alternative investment funds.

AIFMD: Four Delegated and Implementing Regulations concerning cross-border marketing and management notifications relating to the UCITS Directive and the AIFMD have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (here, here, here, and here).

22 March

Smarter Regulatory Framework: HM Treasury published a document on the next phase of the Smarter Regulatory Framework, its project to replace assimilated law relating to financial services.

21 March

Market Transparency: ESMA published a communication on the transition to the new rules under the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (600/2014) (“MiFIR”) to improve market access and transparency.

Retail Investment Package: ECON published a press release announcing it had adopted its draft report on the proposed Directive on retail investment protection (2023/0167(COD)). The proposed Directive will amend the MiFID II Directive (2014/65/EU) (“MiFID II”), the Insurance Distribution Directive ((EU) 2016/97), the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC), the UCITS Directive and the AIFMD.

19 March

ESG: The Council of the EU proposed a new compromise text for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, on which political agreement had previously been reached in December 2023.

FCA Business Plan: The FCA published its 2024/25 Business Plan, which sets out its business priorities for the year ahead.

15 March

Customer Duty: The FCA announced that it is to conduct a review into firms’ treatment of customers in vulnerable circumstances.

PRIIPS Regulation: The Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities published an updated version of its Q&As (JC 2023 22) on the key information document requirements for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (“PRIIPs”), as laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/653.

14 March

FCA Regulatory Approach: The FCA published a speech given by Nikhil Rathi, FCA Chief Executive, on its regulatory approach to deliver for consumers, markets and competitiveness and its shift to outcomes-focused regulation.

11 March

AML: HM Treasury launched a consultation on improving the effectiveness of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/692). The consultation runs until 9 June 2024 and covers four distinct areas.

08 March

ESG: The IA published a report on insights and suggested actions for asset managers following the commencement of reporting obligations of climate-related disclosures under the ESG sourcebook.

ESG: The House of Commons Treasury Committee published a report on the findings from its “Sexism in the City” inquiry.

Cryptoassets: The EBA published a consultation paper (EBA/CP/2024/09) on draft guidelines on redemption plans under Articles 47 and 55 of the MiCA.

05 March

Financial Sanctions: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office published Post-Legislative Scrutiny Memorandum: Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

AML: The FCA published a Dear CEO letter sent to Annex I financial institutions concerning common control failings identified in anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks.

ESG: The European Commission adopted a delegated regulation supplementing the Securitisation Regulation ((EU) 2017/2402) with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying, for simple, transparent and standardised non-ABCP traditional securitisation, and for simple, transparent and standardised on-balance-sheet securitisation, the content, methodologies and presentation of information related to the principal adverse impacts of the assets financed by the underlying exposures on sustainability factors.

CRD IV: The European Commission adopted a Commission Implementing Regulation that amends Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 650/2014 containing ITS on supervisory disclosure under the CRD IV Directive (2013/36/EU) (“CRD IV”).

01 March

Alternative Investment Funds: The FCA published a portfolio letter providing an interim update on its supervisory strategy for the asset management and alternatives portfolios.

Corporate Transparency: The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/269) have been made and published.

Financial Sanctions: The Treasury Committee launched an inquiry into the effectiveness of financial sanctions on Russia.

EMIR: The FCA published a consultation paperin which it, together with the Bank of England, seeks feedback on draft guidance in the form of Q&As on the revised reporting requirements under Article 9 of UK EMIR (648/2012).

FCA Handbook: The FCA published Handbook Notice 116 (dated February 2024), which sets out changes to the FCA Handbook made by the FCA board on 29 February 2024.

FCA Handbook: the FCA published its 43rd quarterly consultation paper (CP24/3), inviting comments on proposed changes to a number of FCA Handbook provisions.

Amar Unadkat, Sulaiman Malik & Michael Singh also contributed to this article.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more news on EU and UK Financial Services Regulation, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

2023 Foreign Direct Investment Year End Update: Continued Expansion of FDI Regulations

As previously reported, regulations and restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) have expanded quickly in the United States and in many of its trading partner countries around the world. FDI has been further complicated in the U.S. by the passage of individual State laws – often focused the acquisition of “agricultural land,” and in Europe by the passage of screening regimes by the individual Member States of the European Union (E.U.).

In 2023, fifteen U.S. States enacted some form of FDI restrictions on real estate. Some States elected to incorporate U.S. Federal regulations regarding who is prohibited from acquiring certain real estate, while other States have focused on broadly protecting agricultural lands. State laws also vary from those that prevent foreign ownership, to those that only require reporting foreign ownership.

Thus far Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin have passed laws related to FDI in real estate.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Ohio and Texas all currently require foreign investors to disclose acquisitions of certain real estate, much like the U.S. Federal Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA). Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, and Wisconsin, actually allow acquirers to fulfill their reporting requirements by simply submitting a copy of applicable federal AFIDA reports. Texas currently only limits Direct Foreign Investment in certain “critical infrastructure.”

Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin limit foreign investment in real estate based on the number of acres; while Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban foreign ownership of certain land completely.

The Alabama Property Protection Act (“APPA”), which went into effect in 2023, is one of the most expansive of the U.S. State laws, and which also incorporates U.S. Federal law. The APPA restricts FDI by a “foreign principal” in real estate related to agriculture, critical infrastructure, or proximate to military installations.

The APPA broadly covers acquiring “title” or a “controlling interest.” The APPA also broadly defines “foreign principal” as a political party and its members, a government, and any government official of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, as well as countries or governments that are subject to any sanction list of the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The APPA defines “agricultural and forest property” as “real property used for raising, harvesting, and selling crops or for the feeding, breeding, management, raising, sale of, or the production of livestock, or for the growing and sale of timber and forest products”; and it defines covered “critical infrastructure” as a chemical manufacturing facility, refinery, electric production facility, water treatment facility, LNG terminal, telecommunications switching facility, gas processing plant, seaport, airport, aerospace and spaceport infrastructure. The APPA also covers land that is located within 10 miles of a “military installation” (of at least 10 contiguous acres) or “critical infrastructure.”

Notably, APPA does not specifically address whether leases are considered a “controlling interest,” nor does it specify enforcement procedures.

U.S. Federal Real Estate FDI

Businesses involved in the U.S. defense industrial base have been historically protected from FDI by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) expanded those historic protections to include certain Critical Technologies, Critical Infrastructure, and Sensitive Data – collectively referred to as covered “TID.”

FIRRMA specifically expanded CFIUS to address national security concerns arising from FDI impacting critical infrastructure and sensitive government installations. Part 802 of FIRRMA established CFIUS jurisdiction and review for certain covered real estate, including real estate in proximity to specified airports, maritime ports, military installations, and other critical infrastructure. Later in 2022, Executive Order 14083 further expanded CFIUS coverage for certain agricultural related real estate.

Covered installations are listed by name and location in appendixes to the CFIUS regulations. Early this year, CFIUS added eight additional government installations to the 100-mile “extended range” proximity coverage of Part 802. The update necessarily captured substantially more covered real estate. Unlike covered Section 1758 technologies that can trigger a mandatory CFIUS filing, CFIUS jurisdiction for covered real estate currently remains only a voluntary filing. Regardless, early diligence remains critical to any transaction in the United States that may result in foreign ownership or control of real estate.

U.S. Trading Partners FDI Regimes

The U.S. is not alone in regulating FDI, or the acquisition of real estate by foreign investors. Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union have legislative frameworks governing foreign investment in business sectors, technology, and real estate. Almost all European Union Member States have some similar form of FDI screening.

Key U.S. trading partners that have adopted FDI regimes include, Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Germany, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Spain, and Sweden. What foreign parties, economic sectors, or technologies are covered vary from country to country. They also vary as to the notification and approval requirements.

The UK National Security and Investment Act (NSI Act) came into effect on 4 January 2022, giving the UK government powers to intervene in transactions where assets or entities are acquired in a manner which may give rise to a national security risk. There were over 800 notifications under the NSI during the previous 12-month reporting period. In November 2023 the Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden published a call for evidence on the legislation which aims to narrow and refine the scope of powers to be more ‘business friendly’, given that very few notified transactions have not been cleared within 30 working days. We will revisit developments on this in 2024.

The UK has continued to implement other reforms to improve transparency of foreign ownership of UK property. Part of the UK Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 requires the register of overseas entities. The register is maintained by Companies House and requires overseas entities which own land in the UK to disclose details of their beneficial owners. Failure to comply with the new legislation will impact any registration of ownership details at the UK Land Registry (and thus the relevant legal and equitable ownership rights in any relevant property) and officers of any entity in breach will also be liable to criminal proceedings.

Recommendations

Whether a buyer or a seller, all transactions involving FDI should include an analysis of the citizenship of the interested parties, the nature of the business, land and products, and the applicability of laws and regulations that can impact the parties, timing, or transaction.

Copyright © 2023 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Foreign Direct Investment Updates, visit the NLR Global law section.

Fed Issues FAQs Clarifying That Credit-Linked Notes Can Serve as Valid Capital Relief Tools for U.S. Banks

On September 28, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) posted three new FAQs to its website regarding Regulation Q (Capital Adequacy of Bank Holding Companies, Savings and Loan Holding Companies, and State Member Banks). The FAQ guidance provides additional clarity on the use of credit-linked notes (“CLNs”) to transfer credit risk and offer capital relief to U.S. banks. While in some respects the FAQs merely confirm positions that the FRB has already taken in regard to individual CLN transactions, these FAQs are nevertheless important inasmuch as they publicly memorialize the FRB’s view of these products as valid capital management tools.

The FAQs speak to two different formats of CLNs: those issued by special purpose vehicles (“SPV CLNs”) and those issued directly by banks (“Bank CLNs”). The FRB’s view of SPV CLNs is relatively straightforward: per the FAQs, the FRB recognizes that properly structured SPV CLNs constitute “synthetic securitizations” for purposes of Regulation Q and that the collateral for such SPV CLNs can serve as a credit risk mitigant that banks can use to reduce the risk-weighting of the relevant assets.

The FRB’s posture toward Bank CLNs, however, is more nuanced.  According to the FRB, unlike SPV CLNs, Bank CLNs do not technically satisfy all of the definitional elements and operational criteria applicable to “synthetic securitizations” under Regulation Q, such that banks that issue Bank CLNs would not be able to automatically recognize the capital benefits of such transactions (as would be the case with properly structured SPV CLNs). The reasons for this are twofold: first, Bank CLNs are not executed under standard industry credit derivative documentation; and second, the issuance proceeds from Bank CLNs generally are owned outright by the issuing bank (rather than held as collateral in which the issuing bank has a security interest). Nevertheless, the FRB recognized that Bank CLNs can effectively transfer credit risk; as such, the FRB is willing to exercise its “reservation of authority” to grant capital relief on a case-by-case basis for Bank CLNs where the only two features of the Bank CLNs that depart from the strictures of Regulation Q are those described above. In other words, Bank CLNs can offer capital relief, but only if the issuing bank specifically requests such relief from the FRB and the FRB decides to grant such relief under its reservation of authority powers.

In his statement dissenting on the issuance of the U.S. Basel III endgame proposed rules—our discussion of which is available here—Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Director Jonathan McKernan argued for increased clarity on the FRB’s position with respect to CLNs in order to provide U.S. banks with better parity in relation to their European counterparts (which routinely issue CLNs in different formats). While these FAQs may not fully address FDIC Director McKernan’s concerns, they do begin to provide some clarity concerning the effective use by banks of CLNs as capital management tools.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Article about by: Daniel Meade , Jed Miller of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more articles on finance, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Permitting Reform Package Passes as Part of Debt Ceiling Deal

The past year’s long wrangling between Republicans, Democrats, and the White House on permitting reform finally made progress this month when Congress enacted significant reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) as part of the legislation to increase the debt ceiling. Prior to this legislation, the core statutory framework of NEPA had remained relatively unchanged for 50 years. Building from Rep. Garrett Graves’ (R-LA., 6th Dist.) “Building United States Infrastructure through Limited Delays and Efficient Reviews” (“BUILDER”) Act of 2023, the permitting reform title of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (“FRA” or “legislation”) tackles four key areas:

(1) reforming NEPA to make the federal environmental review process simpler and quicker;

(2) directing a study of the existing capacity of our transmission grid to reliably transfer electric energy between distinct regions and subsequent recommendations to improve interregional transfer capabilities within the grid;

(3) streamlining permitting for energy storage projects; and

(4) congressional ratification of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

Several of the reforms to NEPA codify changes to the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) NEPA implementing regulations made during the Trump Administration.

While these provisions are intended to yield significant benefits for projects requiring federal approvals or funding, the actual impact will depend substantially on how the reforms are implemented, and there remains considerable interest in other aspects of permitting and siting reform making further legislative action likely.

Key NEPA Reforms

The FRA includes numerous changes to NEPA. We have highlighted several key changes here.

Narrowing the Scope of “Major Federal Action”

The term “major Federal action” is the trigger for requiring environmental review under NEPA – federal actions that qualify as a “major Federal action” must be considered under NEPA. The new legislation narrows the definition of what constitutes a “major Federal action” by limiting the term to actions that the lead agency deems are “subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility.” The legislation does not define this phrase, leaving substantial room for agency interpretation. Building on this general concept, the amendments codify the regulatory definition of a “major Federal action,” with modifications. As now defined, certain federal actions will be excluded from the scope of a major federal action, including:

  • non-federal actions (i.e., private or state actions) “with no or minimal Federal funding”;
  • non-federal actions (i.e., private or state actions) “with no or minimal Federal involvement where a Federal agency cannot control the outcome of the project”;
  • funding assistance consisting exclusively of general revenue sharing funds, where the federal agency does not have “compliance or enforcement responsibility” over the use of those funds;
  • “loans, loan guarantees, or other forms of financial assistance where a Federal agency does not exercise sufficient control and responsibility over the subsequent use of such financial assistance or the effect of the action”;
  • Small Business Act business loan guarantees under section 7(a) or (b) of the Small Business Act or title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958;
  • federal agency activities or decisions with effects located entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the United States; and
  • non-discretionary activities or decisions that are made in accordance with the agency’s statutory authority.

The meaning and application of these exclusions to specific actions will be subject to interpretation and likely litigation going forward. For example, what constitutes minimal funding—a threshold dollar amount or a percentage of the federal funding contribution in relation to overall project cost—is not clearly identified under the revisions. Resolution of this question will be critical to determining what actions are subject to NEPA review going forward. Given the recent dramatic increase in federal funding opportunities from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, determining what actions are subject to NEPA review based on the level of federal funds involved is likely to become a more frequent and important question.

Scope of Review

When an agency action constitutes a “major Federal action,” the FRA also focuses and limits the scope of the NEPA review in two key ways.

First, the legislation modifies the statute’s existing, broad language requiring that “major Federal actions” significantly affecting the quality of the human environment include a detailed statement on the “environmental impact of the proposed action.” The revised language statutorily limits environmental review of environmental effects to those that are “reasonably foreseeable.” This change follows from a provision of the Trump Administration’s 2020 NEPA rule—later removed by the Biden Administration—which sought to eliminate long-used concepts of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and instead focus on effects that are reasonably foreseeable and that have “a reasonably close causal relationship to” the proposed action or alternatives. Although the new statutory language does not go as far as the Trump Administration’s rule, which required a “close causal relationship,” it does follow the trend in case law to only require evaluation of reasonably foreseeable impacts. What project-specific impacts are “reasonably foreseeable” is still likely to be the subject of litigation.

Second, the FRA also makes changes regarding the alternatives analysis, often considered the heart of NEPA review. The legislation clarifies that agencies are to consider a “reasonable range” of alternatives to the proposed agency action, and that such alternatives must both be “technically and economically feasible” and “meet the purpose and need of the proposal.” This seems to codify long-standing guidance from CEQ contained in its 40 Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations. In addition, it directs that, in assessing the no action alternative, agencies must include an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed action. Whether an agency has met its obligations under NEPA to consider “alternatives to the proposed action” is a frequent source of controversy and litigation, particularly for the authorization of large infrastructure and energy projects.

These changes should both help focus environmental reviews and reduce costs and delays associated with challenges to agencies’ alternative analyses and emphasize the importance of properly defining the “purpose and need” of a proposed action.

Data Standards and Requirements

The FRA includes several provisions related to data. First, it clarifies that in making a determination on the appropriate level of review (Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), Environmental Assessment (“EA”), or categorical exclusion), the lead agency can make use of any reliable data source—and that “new scientific or technical research [is not required] unless the new scientific or technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable.” It is unclear whether this will be applied beyond the determination of what level of review is required. This change has the potential to limit delays due to agencies undertaking or requesting additional studies from project proponents. What is deemed “essential” and what costs and timeframe are “not unreasonable,” however, remain undefined.

Second, the legislation requires that the action agency “ensure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussion and analysis in an environmental document.” The practical implications and scope of this scientific integrity mandate are unclear—and is likely to be a subject of agency guidance and, potentially, future litigation.

Efficiency Measures

The FRA further codifies several less controversial changes from the Trump Administration 2020 NEPA rule, which the recent Biden rulemaking had left in place. These changes include expressly recognizing and establishing regulations for EAs. Additionally, these changes include setting page limits for EISs—150 pages generally and 300 pages for agency actions “of extraordinary complexity”—and EAs—75 pages—excluding citations and appendices. Additionally, the changes codify the regulatory presumptive deadlines for completion of NEPA reviews—two years for EISs and one year for EAs. The legislation goes beyond existing regulations by creating the right to judicial review when an agency fails to meet a deadline. Under the new legislation, if an agency misses the deadline, the delayed project’s sponsor may seek a court order requiring the agency to act as soon as practicable, which is not to exceed 90 days from the date on which the order was issued unless the court determines that additional time is needed to comply with applicable law.

Further, the legislation clarifies the role of the NEPA lead agency, specifying that the lead agency must develop a schedule, in cooperation with each cooperating agency, the applicant, and other appropriate entities, for the completion of the environmental review and any permit or authorization required to carry out the proposed agency action. This mirrors provisions previously adopted as part of Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST-41”) in 2015, which has demonstrated success in requiring coordination and improving the permitting and authorization processes for certain large infrastructure projects. Although the FRA expressly contemplates extensions to the schedule, just having a schedule in place can be a helpful tool in the timely completion of NEPA reviews.

In addition, the legislation authorizes project applicants to hire independent consultants to prepare EISs and EAs, subject to the independent review of the lead agency. This provision can provide project applicants with a path to minimize delays caused by a lack of staff and resources at federal agencies.

Programmatic Reviews and Categorical Exclusions

The FRA also codifies the current agency practice of preparing and relying on programmatic environmental documents to streamline the review process for subsequent actions that implement the evaluated program. The legislation provides that programmatic review can be relied on for five years without additional review, and after five years if the agency reevaluates the analysis. Although this change promotes further use of programmatic reviews, the five-year period presumption and reevaluation process could present challenges in certain cases given the extensive resources and time required to undertake a programmatic review and tiered reviews.

The FRA also seeks to facilitate the use of categorical exclusions in the NEPA process by authorizing agencies to adopt a categorical exclusion established by another agency. The legislation lays out a process for consulting with the agency that established the exclusion to determine whether adoption is appropriate, notifying the public of the plan to use the categorical exclusion, and documenting adoption of the categorical exclusion. Though dependent upon agencies taking advantage of this new flexibility, this could have the effect of enabling some types of projects to forgo detailed environmental review.

Other Provisions

In addition to the NEPA reforms, the FRA includes several other important permitting provisions. The legislation seeks to streamline and accelerate permitting for “energy storage” projects by adding energy storage to the list of “covered projects” under FAST-41.

Additionally, the legislation provides a clear path for the completion of the much-delayed Mountain Valley Pipeline project. The legislation finds the timely completion of the project is in the national interest, and congressionally approves and ratifies the various federal authorizations required for the project. Further, the legislation bars judicial review of federal agency actions with respect to the project.

Finally, the legislation requires the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC,” the entity responsible for setting reliability standards for the nation’s electric grid) to undertake a study within a year and a half on whether more transfer capacity is needed between existing transmission planning regions—including recommendations on measures to increase the amount of energy that can be reliably moved between the studied regions. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will thereafter have a year to seek and consider public comments on the study and file a report with Congress detailing any recommendations for statutory changes. This study provision was in lieu of a larger set of transmission-related actions that are of key interest to Democratic lawmakers that will be the subject of future legislative efforts.

Implications

Although the provisions in FRA are not a silver bullet to solve every NEPA woe experienced by project applicants, it is a significant step in the right direction. The codification of key concepts within the NEPA statute itself (rather than regulation, guidance, or case law) will have a durable, long-lasting impact on implementation of environmental reviews because it limits the regulation issuance/withdrawal cycle that we have witnessed with the recent administration changes.

Looking forward, we can expect a rulemaking by CEQ to align the existing regulations with the revised statutory language, as well as additional rulemakings by other agencies to harmonize their NEPA implementing regulations with the revised law. For the last year, we have awaited the Phase 2 NEPA rulemaking from CEQ, as explained in our previous alert. With this new legislation, it seems likely that CEQ will pause and further revise its proposed regulations to capture these new reforms before issuing additional regulations. We can also expect future guidance—and eventual litigation—on several ambiguous provisions in the new legislation as agencies begin to implement them.

While the intention behind the legislation is to speed and ease what has become a very lengthy, expensive, and perilous environmental review process—far exceeding the original intent of NEPA—whether these goals are achieved will depend on whether federal agencies embrace them or look for ways to interpret the reforms to continue “business as usual.”

For example, to meet the new timelines, it is possible that federal agencies will require applicants to provide all documentation needed for the environmental review before starting the clock. This approach would have the effect of undermining the statutory timeframes as well as the efficacy of the public engagement process. Similarly, while the legislation seeks to curtail the extent of the analysis through page limits, it is foreseeable that relatively short EISs and EAs could be weighed down with thousands of pages of analysis contained in the appendices.

It also remains to be seen how courts will interpret these reforms. The “hard look” standard developed by courts to evaluate the adequacy of environmental review documents may have the effect of ballooning the analyses again despite Congress’ intent to streamline the process.

Finally, while these reforms are substantial, Congress continues to discuss and debate additional reforms to address unresolved federal siting and permitting concerns—particularly with respect to energy infrastructure projects. Notably absent from the legislation was transmission permitting reform language of interest to Democratic lawmakers as well as provisions to support oil and gas leasing on federal lands and to facilitate the siting and permitting of mining projects to boost domestic supplies of critical minerals essential for existing and developing clean energy technologies.

© 2023 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review. 

Is Biodiversity Emerging As A Unifying Concept That Can Help Ease The Political Polarization Surrounding ESG?

Highlights

    • In addition to global initiatives by the United Nations, G7, and the U.S., the need for protection against biodiversity loss has become a central focus of the business and investment communities
    • Biodiversity protection is emerging worldwide as a unifying concept that can mitigate the political polarization surrounding ESG and promote constructive dialogue about sustainability
    • A number of steps can be taken to capitalize on the unique attributes and appeal of biodiversity and leverage its potential to serve as a unifying concept

International Biodiversity Day, May 22, 2023, with its theme “From Agreement to Action: Build Back Biodiversity” was a powerful reminder that momentum for biodiversity conservation is accelerating globally. Biodiversity is increasingly being recognized as a potential unifying concept that can help alleviate some of the extreme political divergence over the term ESG.

ESG, which encompasses a broad range of environmental, social, and governance factors, has become politically charged and the subject of intense debate and varying interpretations. Biodiversity, on the other hand, is widely recognized as a critical aspect of environmental sustainability and it is increasingly acknowledged as a pressing issue by virtually all stakeholders, including scientists, policymakers, businesses, and communities.

Biodiversity represents the variety of life on Earth, including ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity. It is a tangible and universally valued concept that resonates with people from various backgrounds and ideologies. The preservation, protection and conservation of biodiversity are essential for the health and resilience of ecosystems, as well as for addressing climate change and ensuring the well-being of future generations.

By emphasizing biodiversity within sustainability discussions, stakeholders can find common ground and rally around a shared objective: protecting and restoring the Earth’s natural diversity. Biodiversity provides a unifying language and focus that transcends political divisions, as it highlights the interconnectedness of all life forms. It allows for a more tangible and universally valued point of reference, which can facilitate collaboration and drive collective action towards conservation efforts.

In addition to global initiatives by the United Nations, the Group of Seven (G7), and the U.S., the need for protection against biodiversity loss has also become a central focus of business and investment communities, and appears to be receiving a more favorable reception in the U.S. than the broader concepts associated with and motives attributed to ESG investing. This increased attention has, in turn, opened up a number of practical opportunities for action to leverage the potential of biodiversity as a unifying concept.

International Support for Biodiversity Protection

The United Nations formed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to promote nature and human well-being. The first draft was proposed on May 22, 1992, which was then designated as International Biodiversity Day. Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, nearly 200 countries have signed onto this treaty, which is a legally binding commitment to conserve biological diversity, to sustainably use its components and to share equitably the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

In December 2022, at the 15th UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15), the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework that calls for protecting 30 percent of the planet’s land, ocean, and inland waters and includes 23 other targets to help restore and protect ecosystems and endangered species worldwide, and ensure that big businesses disclose biodiversity risks and impacts from their operations. The Kunming-Montreal framework also focused on increasing funding for biodiversity by at least $200 billion per year (with at least $30 billion per year to developing countries by 2030).

The U.S. is one of just a few countries worldwide that has not yet formally approved the CBD. While President Clinton signed the CBD in 1993, the Senate did not ratify it. Although the U.S. was on the sidelines at COP15 in late 2022, in parallel with the CBD approval of the Kunming-Montreal framework, the U.S. reiterated its support for an ambitious and transformative Global Diversity Framework, outlined in this State Department press release.

In addition to committing to conserve at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, other U.S. leadership initiatives to mainstream and conserve nature that were announced or reaffirmed at that time include:

    • Conserving forests and combatting global deforestation
    • Prioritizing nature-based solutions to address climate change, nature loss, and inequity
    • Incorporating nature into national economic statistics and accounts to support decision-making
    • Recognizing and including indigenous knowledge in federal research, policy, and decision-making, including protections for the knowledge holder
    • Knowing nature with a national nature assessment that will build on the wealth of existing data, scientific evidence, and Indigenous Knowledge to create a holistic picture of America’s lands, waters, wildlife, ecosystems and the benefits they provide
    • Strengthening action for nature deprived communities by expanding access to local parks, tree canopy cover, conservation areas, open space and water-based recreation, public gardens, beaches, and waterways
    • Conserving arctic ecosystems through increased research on marine ecosystems, fisheries, and wildlife, including through co-production and co-management with Indigenous Peoples

The U.S. also spearheaded efforts to reverse the decline in biodiversity globally by advancing land and water conservation, combating drivers of nature loss, protecting species, and supporting sustainable use, while also enabling healthy and prosperous communities through sustainable development. The U.S. also affirmed its financial commitment to and support for international development assistance to protect biodiversity. Additionally, the U.S. made major policy and financial commitments to protect oceans and advance marine conservation and a sustainable ocean economy.

Of particular importance, the U.S. reaffirmed its commitment to advancing science-based decision making and its support for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Most recently, the G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communique issued at the close of their meeting on May 20 on the cusp of International Biodiversity Day, affirmed that G7 leadership (including the U.S.) welcomed “the adoption of the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, which is fundamental to human well-being, a healthy planet and economic prosperity, and commit to its swift and full implementation and to achievement of each of its goals and targets.”
G7 leadership also reaffirmed their commitment “to substantially increase our national and international funding for nature by 2025,” and “to supporting and advancing a transition to nature positive economies.” Notably, they also pressed companies to do so as well while at the same time voicing support for TNFD’s market framework for corporate nature related disclosures:

“We call on businesses to progressively reduce negative and increase positive impacts on biodiversity. We look forward to the publication of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures’ (TNFD’s) market framework and urge market participants, governments and regulators to support its development.”

Similarly, multilateral development banks (MDBs) were urged by the leaders of G7 to increase their support for biodiversity by leveraging financial resources from all sources and “deploying a full suite of instruments.”

Increasing Focus On Biodiversity By The Financial Sector

The financial sector has taken note of the growing international support for biodiversity conservation and protection. A 2023 study by PwC found that “55% of global GDP—equivalent to about US $58 trillion—is moderately or highly dependent on nature.” In its report The Economic Case for Nature, the World Bank found that a partial collapse of ecosystem services would cost 2.3 percent of global GDP ($2.7 trillion) in 2030. Conversely, the report found that implementing policies beneficial to nature and biodiversity conservation (including achieving the “30×30” goal subsequently approved by the CBD in the Kunming-Montreal framework and by Executive Order in the U.S.) could result in a substantial increase in global real GDP by 2030.

According to a 2020 report by the World Economic Forum, protecting nature and increasing biodiversity could generate business opportunities of $10 trillion a year and create nearly 400 million new jobs by 2030. Given this economic potential, it comes as no surprise that a growing number of investors are focusing on deploying capital for nature-based opportunities, and trying to assess whether and to what extent companies are susceptible to biodiversity related risks.

Toward those ends, the financial sector has been monitoring and supporting the development of TNFD’s market framework for nature related disclosures that was most recently endorsed by G7. That private global effort was launched in 2021 in response to the growing need to factor nature into financial and business decisions. The fourth and final beta version was issued in March 2023:

“The TNFD is a market-led, science-based and government supported initiative to help respond to this imperative. The Taskforce is nearing the end of its two-year framework design and development phase to provide market participants with a risk management and disclosure framework to identify, assess, respond and, where appropriate, disclose their nature-related issues. The TNFD framework, including TCFD-aligned recommended disclosures, will be published in September 2023 ready for market adoption.”

While the TNFD framework is not legally binding, the final version will be coming on line just in time for use as a guide for compliance with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which was effective in April 2023. It will require a substantial number of European companies and others operating in the EU, to start making disclosures regarding biodiversity and nature in coming years.

One of the more significant catalysts for investment in the protection of biodiversity and nature was the establishment of the Natural Capital Investment Alliance as part of the United Kingdom’s Sustainable Markets Initiative announced in 2020 and the Terra Carta sustainability charter launched by King Charles a year later. The Alliance is a public/private venture that aims to invest $10 billion in natural capital assets. Speaking at the One Planet Summit on biodiversity where the Alliance was announced in January 2021, King Charles stated “… I have created a Natural Capital Investment Alliance to help us arrive at a common language on Natural Capital Investment so that we can start putting money to work and improve the flow of capital.”

According to research by Environmental Finance, total assets held in thematic biodiversity funds more than tripled in 2022, and it is anticipated that momentum and growth will accelerate in response to COP 15 in December 2023, and approval of the Kunming-Montreal framework.

Positioning Biodiversity As A Unifying Concept

While biodiversity is not replacing ESG, it is gaining more attention within the broader ESG framework. Biodiversity conservation is supported by a vast body of scientific research and has a broad consensus among stakeholders. Many companies are incorporating biodiversity considerations into their sustainability strategies, and setting goals for conservation, habitat restoration, and responsible land use. Investors are also factoring biodiversity into their decision-making processes, looking for companies that demonstrate strong biodiversity conservation efforts.

Given the universal importance of biodiversity, it can serve as a focal point for mutual understanding for stakeholders with varying perspectives. Biodiversity conservation provides a unifying language that encourages collaborative efforts towards shared goals of environmental stewardship and the preservation of natural resources. Protection against biodiversity loss is not an ideological issue. To the contrary, it is fundamental, practical, and existential: the need to preserve the natural systems that support life on Earth. Emphasizing the importance of biodiversity shifts the focus to concrete and tangible actions required globally and locally, such as species preservation, and ecosystem protection, which can garner broader support and participation and help bridge political divides.

While biodiversity protection is by no means a panacea, there are further steps that can be taken to capitalize on its unique attributes and appeal that can improve the potential for biodiversity to serve as a unifying concept that can help reduce the current political polarization in the U.S. over ESG and promote more constructive dialogue around sustainability:

    • Universal concern – Biodiversity loss affects every individual and society, regardless of political affiliation. It is a shared concern that is oblivious to political boundaries, as the preservation of nature’s diversity is vital for the well-being of all life on Earth. By emphasizing biodiversity as a unifying concept, stakeholders can find mutuality and work together towards its conservation.
    • Inclusivity – Biodiversity requires inclusive engagement by diverse stakeholders and technical and scientific support from local communities, indigenous groups, governments, businesses, civil society organizations and the public. Such engagement fosters dialogue, understanding, and collaboration, breaking down political barriers.
    • Tangible and relatable – Biodiversity is a concrete and tangible concept that people can relate to, unlike some of the more complex ESG concepts, like Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and Net Zero. It encompasses the variety of species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity, which are easily understandable and relatable to everyday experiences. This relatability can bridge political divides and foster broader support for conservation efforts.
    • Interconnectedness – Biodiversity underscores the interconnectedness of ecosystems and species emphasizing that actions in one area can have cascading far-reaching consequences on others, including ecological, social, and economic effects. Recognizing this interconnectedness can encourage stakeholders to collaborate across sectors and ideologies to address biodiversity loss collectively.
    • Co-benefits and shared values – Biodiversity conservation often aligns with other societal values and goals, such as climate change mitigation, sustainable development, and human well-being. By emphasizing the co-benefits that arise from biodiversity conservation, such as ecosystem services and resilience, stakeholders can rally around shared values and work towards a common vision.
    • Economic implications – Biodiversity loss can have significant economic implications for industries like agriculture, tourism, and pharmaceuticals. It can also have impacts on supply chains and market access. Recognizing the economic value of biodiversity and the potential risks associated with its decline can bring together diverse stakeholders, including businesses and investors, who recognize the importance of integrating biodiversity considerations into their strategies and decision-making processes.
    • Science-based approach – Biodiversity conservation relies on scientific knowledge and research. Emphasizing the scientific evidence on the importance of biodiversity helps build consensus and transcends political biases, providing a foundation for constructive discussions.
    • Local and global perspectives – Biodiversity conservation is relevant at both local and global scales. It allows for discussions that incorporate local knowledge, values, and practices, while recognizing the need for global cooperation to address biodiversity loss and protect shared resources.

To leverage biodiversity as a unifying concept, it is crucial to promote open dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collaboration. Stakeholders should engage in inclusive decision-making processes that respect diverse perspectives and prioritize equitable and sustainable outcomes.

Takeaways

Biodiversity is emerging as a potential unifying concept that can help mitigate the political polarization surrounding the term ESG. While ESG has become a politically charged and debated topic, biodiversity is widely recognized as a critical aspect of environmental sustainability and has broad support across different stakeholders.

By focusing on biodiversity, stakeholders can find common ground in recognizing the importance of preserving nature’s diversity and ensuring the long-term sustainability of ecosystems. Biodiversity loss is a global challenge that affects everyone, irrespective of political affiliation, and it is increasingly acknowledged as a pressing issue by scientists, policymakers, businesses, and communities.

It is important to note that while biodiversity can be a unifying concept, there will still be debates and differing opinions on specific approaches and trade-offs involved in biodiversity conservation. Different stakeholders may have differing priorities, perspectives, and proposed means and methods to address biodiversity loss. The complexity of biodiversity issues, such as balancing conservation with economic development or navigating conflicts between different stakeholder interests, requires careful consideration and dialogue.

© 2023 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more Financial Legal News, visit the National Law Review.

Information for Borrowers with Loans from Silicon Valley Bank or Signature Bank

This alert provides information for borrowers with loans from Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) or Signature Bank (“Signature”) based on information available from the FDIC and our clients’ experiences over the last few days. We have also included information regarding the FDIC’s general policies and procedures when selling and administering loans of failed banks. We will update this alert as additional information becomes available.

Borrowers with loans from SVB or Signature continue to wait for information from the FDIC, and the new bridge banks it formed, with respect to their loans, including any information regarding the sale of their loans, new bank contact information and updates to borrowing procedures and payoff logistics. At present, we understand that the bridge banks are attempting to operate in the same manner with respect to their borrowers (and depositors) that SVB and Signature operated prior to their failures, including through use of the existing relationship managers/bank contacts and online platforms and consistent borrowing and payment mechanics.

Systemic Risk Exception

As widely reported, on Sunday, March 12, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Treasury Secretary announced a systemic risk exception and created Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. and Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. (together, the “Bridge Banks”). The systemic risk exception is an attempt to avoid a widespread bank run and to ensure that all of SVB and Signature Bank’s depositors would be made whole after the failures of the two banks. The systemic risk exception is an exception to federal law that otherwise would require the FDIC to resolve a bank failure at the lowest cost to the Government’s deposit insurance fund.  See Crisis and Response: An FDIC History, 2008-2013, p. 36. Otherwise, the FDIC would not have been in a position to backstop uninsured deposits beyond the $250,000 insured limit per depositor per ownership category. For more information about FDIC deposit insurance limits please see our prior alert: SVB Receivership – What You Need to Know.

Prior to Sunday, the only uses of the systemic risk exception occurred in 2008 and 2009.  Id., pp. 35-36. The systemic risk exception has never before been used to create bridge banks at which loans at failed institutions would then be sold or administered by the FDIC.

Sale of SVB and Signature Loans

The general expectation after a bank failure is that the failed bank’s loans will be sold to a new lender as expeditiously as possible. The FDIC conducted an auction for the assets of SVB (including its loan portfolio) on Sunday, March 12. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, March 13 that, while none of the largest U.S. Banks bid on SVB at the initial auction, there was at least one offer which was declined by the FDIC. The WSJ is also reporting that regulators are planning to hold another auction of SVB’s assets. We also anticipate an auction of Signature’s assets. The timing of these auctions remains unclear.

In the event that either or both of these auctions produce buyers of the Bridge Banks’ respective assets in bulk, those buyers will become the lenders under the failed banks’ loans. In that case, the applicable successor lender will advise its new borrowers of their new bank contacts and provide relevant loan administration information including loan payment procedures.

If either or both of the auctions fail to produce a buyer for all of the bank’s assets, a bank’s loan portfolio may be split up and sold piecemeal. In this event it may take longer before borrowers know the identity of their new lender. If some or all of the loans are not purchased, they will continue to be administered by the respective Bridge Banks or the FDIC. As noted above, the intent of the FDIC is to continue to operate the Bridge Banks pending substantial completion of the sale process.

Borrowing Under an SVB or Signature Line of Credit

In general, when the FDIC is appointed receiver, it immediately begins analyzing loans that require special attention, such as unfunded and partially funded lines of credit, and construction and development loans. Typically speaking, the role of receiver generally precludes the FDIC from continuing the lending operations of a failed bank; however, the FDIC will consider advancing funds if it determines an advance is in the best interest of the receivership, such as to protect or enhance collateral, or to ensure maximum recovery to the receivership. See A Borrowers Guide to an FDIC Insured Bank Failure.

When the FDIC is operating as receiver, its general procedures provide that if a borrower submits a request for additional funding, the FDIC will conduct a thorough analysis to determine the best course of action for the receivership. The FDIC uses information contained in the failed bank’s loan files to the extent available and considered reliable. Because the files of failed banks are often incomplete or poorly documented, the FDIC may require additional financial information to perform its analysis and make decisions.

In the current circumstances, with the Bridge Banks operating under the systemic risk exception, these general FDIC rules appear to have been relaxed, at least for the time being and our clients are reporting that borrowing (and deposit) operations are generally functioning in the ordinary course. We have not yet heard from any clients that additional information has been required in connection with advances from the Bridge Banks.

SVB Contact Information

The FDIC is currently directing SVB borrowers with questions about drawing on lines of credit to contact their existing relationship manager/bank representative at SVB. SVB also has a call center at 800-774-7390 open from 5:00 AM to 5:30 PM (Pacific) with representatives that can assist borrowers.

Signature Contact Information

The FDIC is currently directing Signature borrowers with questions about drawing on lines of credit to contact their existing relationship manager/bank representative at Signature Bank. Signature Bank also has a 24-hour call center at 866-744-5463 with representatives that can assist borrowers.

On Monday, March 13, our clients had mixed results contacting their existing bank relationship managers and drawing on lines of credit. Some clients requested online draws but have not been successful as a result of system malfunctions (and we heard the same reports with respect to some attempts to access and move deposits). On the other hand, we heard reports from our clients that automatic draws and account sweeps have continued to function (and many borrowers successfully accessed their accounts). Today (March 14), clients appear to be having more success in accessing their lines of credit. We will continue to gather information about borrowers’ ability to access their lines as it becomes available.

Loan Payoff/Lien Release Information

Many clients have inquired about the mechanics for arranging a loan payoff/refinancing of their SVB loan or Signature loan. In the event that the loan is sold, the borrower can coordinate payoff with the new lender that purchased the loan. In the meantime, borrowers should reach out to their relationship managers or otherwise contact the bank using the means provided above to arrange any payoff and/or lien release. Further information regarding lien releases may also be found on the FDIC lien release website. In the event that borrowers’ loans are not sold quickly by the FDIC to a new lender, we expect that those borrowers will be strongly encouraged by the FDIC to arrange for a refinancing. See A Borrowers Guide to an FDIC Insured Bank Failure.

Continue Performing Obligations under Loan Documents

Notwithstanding the failures of SVB and Signature, their borrowers should continue to abide by their loan documents, including submitting payments as required by their loan documents at the same addresses and complying with all other covenants and agreements. Borrowers will be advised by the FDIC, the Bridge Banks or a subsequent purchaser of their loan if there are any updates to payment mechanics or bank contact information.

Article By Timothy John Carter, Jonathan C. Hayden, Trevor Hoffmann, Muryum Khalid, Kevin Renna, Douglas B. Rosner, Andrew Rothstein, Jesse Rubinstein, and Jesse Scott of Goulston & Storrs.

Click here for more financial legal news from the National Law Review.

2023 Goulston & Storrs PC.

The Future of Stablecoins, Crypto Staking and Custody of Digital Assets

In the wake of the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange firm FTX, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has ratcheted up its oversight and enforcement of crypto firms engaged in activities ranging from crypto staking to custody of digital assets. This is due in part to concerns that the historically free-wheeling and largely unregulated crypto marketplace may adversely impact U.S. investors and contaminate traditional financial systems. The arguments that cryptocurrencies and digital assets should not be viewed as securities under federal laws largely fall on deaf ears at the SEC. Meanwhile, the state of the crypto economy in the United States remains in flux as the SEC, other regulators and politicians alike attempt to balance competing interests of innovation and investment in a relatively novel and untested asset class.

Is Crypto Staking Dead?

First, what is crypto staking? By way of background, it’s necessary to understand a bit about blockchain technology, which serves as the underpinning for all cryptocurrency and digital asset transactions. One of the perceived benefits of such transactions is that they are decentralized and “peer-to-peer” – meaning that Person A can transact directly with Person B without the need for a financial intermediary to approve the transaction.

However, in the absence of a central authority to validate a transaction, blockchain requires other verification processes or consensus mechanisms such as “proof of work” (which in the case of Bitcoin mining ensures that transactions are valid and added to the Bitcoin blockchain correctly) or “proof of stake” (a network of “validators” who contribute or “stake” their own crypto in exchange for a chance to validate a new transaction, update the blockchain and earn a reward). Proof of work has come under fire by environmental activists for the enormous amounts of computer power and energy required to solve complex mathematical or cryptographic puzzles to validate a transaction before it can be recorded on the blockchain. In contrast, proof of stake is analogous to a shareholder voting their shares of stock to approve a corporate transaction.

Second, why has crypto staking caught the attention of the SEC? Many crypto firms and exchanges offer “staking as a service” (SaaS) whereby investors can stake (or lend) their digital assets in exchange for lucrative returns. This practice is akin to a person depositing cash in a bank account in exchange for interest payments – minus FDIC insurance backing of all such bank deposits to protect investors.

Recently, on February 9, 2023, the SEC charged two crypto firms, commonly known as “Kraken,” for violating federal securities laws by offering a lucrative crypto asset SaaS program. Pursuant to this program, investors could stake their digital assets with Kraken in exchange for annual investment returns of up to 21 percent. According to the SEC, this program constituted the unregistered sale of securities in violation of federal securities laws. Moreover, the SEC claims that Kraken failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with its staking program. According to the SEC’s Enforcement Division director:

“Kraken not only offered investors outsized returns untethered to any economic realities but also retained the right to pay them no returns at all. All the while, it provided them zero insight into, among other things, its financial condition and whether it even had the means of paying the marketed returns in the first place.”1

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Kraken has agreed to pay a $30 million civil penalty and will no longer offer crypto staking services to U.S. investors. Meanwhile, other crypto firms that offer similar programs, such as Binance and Coinbase, are waiting for the other shoe to drop – including the possibility that the SEC will ban all crypto staking programs for U.S. retail investors. Separate and apart from potentially extinguishing a lucrative revenue stream for crypto firms and investors alike, it may have broader consequences for proof of stake consensus mechanisms commonly used to validate blockchain transactions.

NY DFS Targets Stablecoins

In the world of cryptocurrency, stablecoins are typically considered the most secure and least volatile because they are often pegged 1:1 to some designated fiat (government-backed) currency such as U.S. dollars. In particular, all stablecoins issued by entities regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) are required to be fully backed 1:1 by cash or cash equivalents. However, on February 13, 2023, NY DFS unexpectedly issued a consumer alert stating that it had ordered Paxos Trust Company (Paxos) to stop minting and issuing a stablecoin known as “BUSD.” BUSD is reportedly the third largest stablecoin by market cap and pegged to the U.S. dollar.

The reasoning behind the NY DFS order remains unclear from the alert, which merely states that “DFS has ordered Paxos to cease minting Paxos-issued BUSD as a result of several unresolved issues related to Paxos’ oversight of its relationship with Binance in regard to Paxos-issued BUSD.”2 The same day, Paxos confirmed that it would stop issuing BUSD. However, in an effort to assuage investors, Paxos stated “All BUSD tokens issued by Paxos Trust have and always will be backed 1:1 with U.S. dollar–denominated reserves, fully segregated and held in bankruptcy remote accounts.”3

Separately, the SEC reportedly issued a Wells Notice to Paxos on February 12, 2023, indicating that it intended to commence an enforcement action against the company for violating securities laws in connection with the sale of BUSD, which the SEC characterized as unregistered securities. Paxos, meanwhile, categorically denies that BUSD constitute securities, but nonetheless has agreed to stop issuing these tokens in light of the NY DFS order.

It remains to be seen whether the regulatory activity targeting BUSD is the beginning of a broader crackdown on stablecoins amid concerns that, contrary to popular belief, such coins may not be backed by adequate cash reserves.

Custody of Crypto Assets

On February 15, 2023, the SEC proposed changes to the existing “custody rule” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. As noted by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the custody rule was designed to “help ensure that [investment] advisers don’t inappropriately use, lose, or abuse investors’ assets.”4 The proposed changes to the rule (referred to as the “safeguarding rule”) would require investment advisers to maintain client assets – specifically including crypto assets – in qualified custodial accounts. As the SEC observed, “[although] crypto assets are a relatively recent and emerging type of asset, this is not the first time custodians have had to adapt their practices to safeguard different types of assets.”5

A qualified custodian generally is a federal or state-chartered bank or savings association, certain trust companies, a registered broker-dealer, a registered futures commission merchant or certain foreign financial institutions.6 However, as noted by the SEC, many crypto assets trade on platforms that are not qualified custodians. Accordingly, “this practice would generally result in an adviser with custody of a crypto asset security being in violation of the current custody rule because custody of the crypto asset security would not be maintained by a qualified custodian from the time the crypto asset security was moved to the trading platform through the settlement of the trade.”7

Moreover, in a departure from existing practice, the proposed safeguarding rule would require an investment adviser to enter into a written agreement with the qualified custodian. This custodial agreement would set forth certain minimum protections for the safeguarding of customer assets, including crypto assets, such as:

  • Implementing appropriate measures to safeguard an advisory client’s assets8
  • Indemnifying an advisory client when its negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct results in that client’s loss9
  • Segregating an advisory client’s assets from its proprietary assets10
  • Keeping certain records relating to an advisory client’s assets
  • Providing an advisory client with periodic custodial account statements11
  • Evaluating the effectiveness of its internal controls related to its custodial practices.12

The new proposed, cumbersome requirements for custodians of crypto assets appear to be a direct consequence of the collapse of FTX, which resulted in the inexplicable “disappearance” of billions of dollars of customer funds. By tightening the screws on custodians and investment advisers, the SEC is seeking to protect the everyday retail investor by leveling the playing field in the complex and often murky world of crypto. However, it still remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, the proposed safeguarding rule will emerge after the public comment period, which will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.

1 SEC Press Release 2023-25 (Feb. 9, 2023).

2 NY DFS Consumer Alert (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/alerts/Paxos_and_Binance.

3 Paxos Press Release (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://paxos.com/2023/02/13/paxos-will-halt-minting-new-busd-tokens/.

4 SEC Press Release 2023-30 (Feb. 15, 2023).

5 SEC Proposed Rule, p. 79.

6 SEC Fact Sheet: Proposed Safeguarding Rule.

7 SEC Proposed Rule, p. 68.

8 For instance, per the SEC, this could require storing crypto assets in a “cold wallet.”

9 Per the SEC, “the proposed indemnification requirement would likely operate as a substantial expansion in the protections provided by qualified custodians to advisory clients, in particular because it would result in some custodians holding advisory client assets subject to a simple negligence standard rather than a gross negligence standard.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 89.

10 Per the SEC, this requirement is intended to “ensure that client assets are at all times readily identifiable as client property and remain available to the client even if the qualified custodian becomes financially insolvent or if the financial institution’s creditors assert a lien against the qualified custodian’s proprietary assets (or liabilities).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 92.

11 Per the SEC, “[in] a change from the current custody rule, the qualified custodian would also now be required to send account statements, at least quarterly, to the investment adviser, which would allow the adviser to more easily perform account reconciliations.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 98.

12 Per the SEC, the proposed rule would require that the “qualified custodian, at least annually, will obtain, and provide to the investment adviser a written internal control report that includes an opinion of an independent public accountant as to whether controls have been placed in operation as of a specific date, are suitably designed, and are operating effectively to meet control objectives relating to custodial services (including the safeguarding of the client assets held by that qualified custodian during the year).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 101.

Article By Anjali C. Das of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

For more cryptocurrency and finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Wilson Elser

Australia: ASIC Reveals 2023 Enforcement Priorities

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has revealed its key enforcement priorities for 2023. This year, ASIC has signalled an expanded focus on enforcement activity targeting:

  • sustainable finance practices and disclosure of climate risks;
  • financial scams;
  • cyber and operational resilience; and
  • investor harms involving crypto-assets.

In its release, ASIC has emphasised that the regulator’s prioritisation of monitoring in these areas intends to “address misconduct, market integrity threats and consumer harms in sectors including financial services, retail and crypto-assets.”

The warning coincides with this month’s release of ASIC’s enforcement and regulatory report that highlights the major uptick in enforcement and regulatory actions taken by ASIC during the last half of 2022, including:

  • 173 criminal charges being laid and $76.3 million in civil penalties imposed;
  • heightened action against money laundering risks;
  • the issuance of 22 design and distribution obligations (DDO) stop orders to prevent consumers and investors being targeted by products inappropriate to their objectives, financial situation and needs; and
  • the regulator’s first action for greenwashing and consequential issuance of infringement notices for misleading sustainability-related statements.

Another priority of ASIC for the coming year is to increase its transparency to industry and streamline its interactions with the entities it regulates. For the first time, ASIC has released a regulatory developments timetable setting out projected timeframes for ASIC regulatory work, such as the publication of draft or final guidance, and the anticipated making of a legislative instrument. ASIC’s release of these key enforcement priorities and regulatory developments timetable gives us a clear indication of ASIC’s intention to continue its heightened level of surveillance and enforcement action into 2023.

Article By Matthew J. Watts and Rebecca Mangos of K&L Gates

For more securities legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates

Who Owns the Crypto, the Customer or the Debtor?

Whose crytpo is it? With the multiple cryptocurrency companies that have recently filed for bankruptcy (FTX, Voyager Digital, BlockFi), and more likely on the way, that simple sounding question is taking on huge significance. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Chief Judge Martin Glenn) attempted to answer that question in the Celsius Network LLC bankruptcy case.

The Facts of the Case

Celsius and its affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors”) ran a cryptocurrency finance platform. Faced with extreme turbulence in the cryptocurrency markets, the Debtors filed Chapter 11 petitions on July 13, 2022. As part of their regular business, the Debtors had allowed customers to both deposit cryptocurrency digital assets on their platform and earn a percentage yield, as well as take out loans by pledging their cryptocurrencies as security. One specific program offered by the Debtors was the “Earn” program, under which customers could transfer certain cryptocurrencies to the Debtors and earn “rewards” in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens. On the petition date, the Earn program accounts (the “Earn Accounts”) held cryptocurrency assets with a market value of approximately $4.2 billion. Included within the Earn Accounts were stablecoins valued at approximately $23 million in September 2022. A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to be tied or pegged to another currency, commodity or financial instrument.

Recognizing their emerging need for liquidity, on November 11, 2022, the Debtors filed a motion seeking entry of an order (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption that the Debtors owned the assets in the Earn Accounts and (b) permitting the sale of the stablecoins held in the Earn Accounts under either section 363(c)(1) (sale in the ordinary course of business) or section 363(b)(1) (sale outside the ordinary course of business) of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion generated opposition from the U.S. Trustee, various States and State securities regulators and multiple creditors and creditor groups. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors objected to the sale of the stablecoins under section 363(c)(1) but argued that the sale should be approved under section 363(b)(1) because the Debtors had shown a good business reason for the sale (namely to pay ongoing administrative expenses of the bankruptcy cases). On January 4, 2023, the court issued its forty-five (45) page memorandum opinion granting the Debtors’ motion.

The Court’s Decision

Although the ownership issue may appear complex given the nature of the assets (i.e., cryptocurrency), the bankruptcy court framed the issue into relatively straightforward state law questions of contract formation and interpretation. The court first analyzed whether there was a valid contract governing the parties’ rights to the cryptocurrency assets in the Earn Accounts. Under governing New York law, a valid, enforceable contract requires an offer and acceptance (i.e., mutual assent), consideration and an intent to be bound. The court found that all three elements were satisfied. The Debtors required that all customers agree to and accept “Terms of Use.” The Terms of Use was set up as a “clickwrap” agreement that required customers to agree to the terms and prevented the customers from advancing to the next page and completing their sign up unless they agreed to the Terms of Use. Under New York law, “clickwrap” agreements are sufficient to constitute mutual assent. The court also found that consideration was given by way of allowing the customers to earn a financing fee (i.e., the rewards in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens). Finally, the court noted that no party had presented evidence that either the Debtors or the customers lacked intent to be bound by the contract terms. Accordingly, the court held that the Terms of Use constituted a valid contract, subject to the rights of customers to put forth individual contract formation defenses in the future, including claims of fraudulent inducement based on representations allegedly made by the Debtors’ former CEO, Alex Mashinsky.

Having found a valid contract to presumptively exist, the court turned its attention to what the Terms of Use provided in terms of transfer of ownership. In operative part, the Terms of Use provided:

In consideration for the Rewards payable to you on the Eligible Digital Assets using the Earn Service … and the use of our Services, you grant Celsius … all right and title to such Eligible Digital Assets, including ownership rights, and the right, without further notice to you, to hold such Digital Assets in Celsius’ own Virtual Wallet or elsewhere, and to pledge, re-pledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend or otherwise transfer or use any amount of such Digital Assets, separately or together with other property, with all the attendant rights of ownership, and for any period of time, and without retaining in Celsius’ possession and/or control a like amount of Digital Assets or any other monies or assets, and use or invest such Digital Assets in Celsius’ full discretion. You acknowledge that with respect Digital Assets used by Celsius pursuant to this paragraph:

  1. You will not be able to exercise rights of ownership;
  2. Celsius may receive compensation in connection with lender or otherwise using Digital Assets in its business to which you have no claim or entitlement; and
  3. In the event that Celsius becomes bankrupt, enters liquidation or is otherwise unable to repay its obligations, any Eligible Digital Assets used in the Earn Service or as collateral under the Borrow Service may not be recoverable, and you may not have any legal remedies or rights in connection with Celsius’ obligations to you other than your rights as a creditor of Celsius under any applicable laws.

Based on this language, the court held that the Terms of Use unambiguously transferred ownership of the assets in the Earn Accounts to the Debtors. Central to the court’s decision was that under the Terms of Use customers had granted the Debtors “all right and title to such Digital Assets, including ownership rights.” Based on this language, the court found that title and ownership of the cryptocurrency held in the Earn Accounts was “unequivocally transferred to the Debtors and became property of the Estate on the Petition Date.”

Finally, the court found that the Debtors had shown that they needed to generate liquidity to fund the bankruptcy cases, and that additional liquidity would be needed early this year. Accordingly, the court held that the Debtors had shown sufficient cause to permit the sale of the stablecoins outside of the ordinary course of business in accordance with section 363(b)(1).

Implications

Given the turbulent nature of the cryptocurrency market and the likelihood of further cryptocurrency bankruptcy filings, the court’s ruling is sure to have significant implications. First, unless it is reversed on appeal, the opinion means that the Debtors’ Earn program customers do not own the funds in their digital accounts and will instead be relegated to the status of unsecured creditors with a highly uncertain recovery. Second, the opinion underscores the Wild West nature of crypto and the fact that unlike deposits at a federally insured financial institution, deposits at cryptocurrency exchanges are not similarly insured and may be at risk. Third, customers or account holders in other cryptocurrency exchanges or businesses should carefully review the applicable terms of use to determine if those terms transferred ownership of their digital assets to their cryptocurrency counterparty. It is likely a fair assumption that such other terms of use transferred ownership in the same way that the Celsius Terms of Use did, in which case customers must remain vigilant of the financial health of their cryptocurrency counterparty. Finally, all parties engaging in on-line business transactions, including those outside of cryptocurrency, are on notice that clickwrap agreements commonly found in such transactions are, at least under New York law, enforceable. In short, those agreements mean something, and the fact that a party did not read the terms before agreeing to them through a “click” is likely not going to be a viable defense to the enforcement of those terms.

For more Bankruptcy Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2023 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

NFT Endorsed by Celebrities Prompts Class Action

Since the early days of the launch of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) non-fungible tokens (NFTs), several celebrities have promoted the NFTs. On Dec. 8, 2022, plaintiffs Adonis Real and Adam Titcher brought a lawsuit against Yuga Labs, creators of the BAYC, alleging that Yuga Labs was involved in a scheme with the “highly connected” talent agent Greg Oseary, a number of well-known celebrities, and Moonpay USA LLC, a crypto tech company. According to the complaint:

  1. Yuga Labs partnered with Oseary to recruit celebrities to promote and solicit sales of BYAC;
  2. Celebrities promoted the BAYC on their various platforms;
  3. Oseary used MoonPay to secretly pay the celebrities; and
  4. The celebrities failed to disclose the payments in their endorsements.

According to the complaint, as a result of the various and misleading celebrity promotions, trading volume for the BYAC NFTs exploded, prompting the defendants to launch the ApeCoin and form the ApeCoin decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Investors who had purchased the ApeCoin allegedly lost a significant amount of money when the value of the coins decreased.

This case highlights the potential risks that may arise in connection with certain endorsements. In addition to the FTC, the SEC also has issued guidance on requirements in connection with promotional activities relating to securities, which may include digital assets, such as tokens or NFTs. Under SEC guidance, any paid promoter, celebrity or otherwise, of a security, including digital assets, must disclose the nature, scope and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion. This would include tv/radio advertisements and print, in addition to promotions on social media sites.

Article By Barbara A. Jones, William B. Mack, and India L. Sneed of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.